Back
COURT OF APPEAL KUALA LUMPUR
TSOI PING KWAN – Appellant
Versus
LOH LAI NGOH & ANOR – Respondent
[1] The facts and background relevant to this case have already been set out in the judgment of this Court in an earlier appeal by the same appellant. See, Tsoi Ping Kwan v. Medan Juta Sdn Bhd & Anor, [1996] 3 MLJ 367 ('Medan Juta No 1'). We do not propose to engage in a repetition of them. Suffice to say that the earlier appeal concerned the High Court's decision to remove the caveats entered by the instant appellant while the present case concerns the refusal by the same Court to accede to the appellant's application for a Mareva injunction. This Court, in the course of its judgment in Medan Juta No 1, adverted to the present appeal. See, [1996] 3 MLJ at p 383.
[2] It is conceded by the respondents (the second respondent being Medan Juta Sdn Bhd) that the appellant had made out an arguable case for the grant of a Mareva. There are several issues upon which the disputants before us stand in disagreement. However, we find it necessary to deal with only two of them. The first has to do with the question whether the appellant has established that there is a serious risk or danger that the respondents will dissipate their assets to avoid meeting any judgment
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
